JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi,J: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents. 2. The present appeal has been preferred by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the judgment and award dated 07.02.2017, passed by learned District Judge XIV Cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in connection with Title (M.V.) Case No. 177 of 2014 whereby claimants have been directed to pay Rs. 13,08,600/- along with interest @ 6% per annum upon the whole compensation amount from the filing of the suit till its realization within 60 days’ from the date of judgment, failing which plaintiffs would be at liberty to take legal recourse for the same. The direction was to the Insurance Company to pay. 3. The brief facts behind institution of claim application is that the deceased on 25.02.2012 was going to Deoghar upon a pick up van no. JH-15C-7933 and reached near the Kumahar Bandi and a Truck no. JH10AA-4875 being driven in a very rash and negligent manner dashed the pick up van from behind causing it to be separated in two parts and its carrier turned turtle causing serious injuries to Abdul Gani (deceased) and two other fellows and he succumbed to his injuries at Sadar Hospital Deoghar. The claimants have filed application before the learned Tribunal for grant of compensation in lieu of the death of Abdul Gani. The learned Tribunal passed judgment by which the claimants were directed to be paid compensation. 4. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no proof of income of deceased was brought on record and thus the Tribunal should require to take Rs. 3,000/- as notional income for computing the compensation to the victims of accident and the Tribunal incorrectly assessed monthly income of Rs. 7,000/- and the computation arrived at does not stand the good in the eye of law. Mr. Lal relies in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Bandana Saw and Others, reported in MANU/JH/0381/2014. 5. Mr. Lal further submitted that the deceased was a Raj Mistri and thus, it is not possible that he was earning Rs. 7,000/- per month at the time of accident. 6. On perusal of the judgment, it transpires that P.W. 2 and P.W.3 have submitted regarding engagement of the deceased for masonry work with daily remuneration of Rs. 250/-. 5. Mr. Lal further submitted that the deceased was a Raj Mistri and thus, it is not possible that he was earning Rs. 7,000/- per month at the time of accident. 6. On perusal of the judgment, it transpires that P.W. 2 and P.W.3 have submitted regarding engagement of the deceased for masonry work with daily remuneration of Rs. 250/-. Learned Tribunal has taken into account a very conservative view in estimating of his income which assessed as Rs. 7,000/- per month. 7. Mr. Rajiv Kr. Karan, learned counsel appearing for respondents/claimants submitted that the deceased was doing the skilled work and a skilled person can earn more than Rs. 7,000/- per month. The Tribunal rightly came to that finding. He relied in the case of Shivakamar M. Vs. Managing Director, Bengaluru, Metropolitan Transport Corporation reported in (2017) 5 SCC 79 from which paragraph nos. 5 and 6 are quoted hereunder: “5. No doubt, there was no evidence available with regard to the income of the appellant but there is no dispute on the fact that he was painted by profession. The accident happened in the year 2013 when he was living in Bangalore, Karnataka. For a casual worker, who goes from house to house and place to place doing his painting work it is difficult to get any evidence, since there is no employer. He does his daily work, sometimes piece-rated work as well. That is why he made a moderate self-estimation of his income of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 16,500/-. 6. In the absence of any serious dispute on the part of the respondent on the avocation and income, we are of the view that the Tribunal and for that matter the High Court should have accepted the evidence of the appellant. Therefore, we assess his monthly income as Rs. 15,000 and after deducting one-third towards his personal expenses, the income will be assessed for the purpose of computation of compensation as Rs. 10,000 per month. The income is substituted as Rs. 10,000 in the place of Rs. 6500, as assessed by the High Court. The compensation will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition before the Tribunal. Rest of the award is maintained.” 8. Mr. 10,000 per month. The income is substituted as Rs. 10,000 in the place of Rs. 6500, as assessed by the High Court. The compensation will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition before the Tribunal. Rest of the award is maintained.” 8. Mr. Karan further submitted that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court relying on the case of Shivakumar M. (Supra) held that the deceased income has been wrongly assessed by the Tribunal as Rs. 3,000/- and held it should be Rs. 6,000/- per month. In this connection he referred to the case of Basir Ansari & Anr. Vs. Sukhdeo Mistri & Ors. reported in 2019 (1) JBCJ 317 (HC). 9. It appears that there were two sets of evidence to the extent of deceased was earning Rs. 250/- daily and taking this into account Tribunal came to the finding of income as Rs. 7,000/-. This Court accepts the same which needs no interference. 10. This Court finds that the Tribunal erred in awarding 30% towards future prospects and awarding less amount under the conventional heads such as funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium in the light of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in 2017(4) JBCJ 388 (SC). 11. In Pranay Sethi case(Supra) the Apex Court held that 25% of income be added towards future prospect and on conventional heads, such as loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/- , Rs 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. In light of the above the Award of Tribunal is modified to 25% of income towards future prospects instead of 30% as held by Tribunal. On conventional heads, funeral expenses will be Rs. 10,000/- in addition to Rs. 5000/- as granted by the Tribunal Rs. 10,000/- more in awarded amount of Tribunal on loss of estate and Rs. 35,000/- more under the head loss of consortium. Thus, the amount of compensation is calculated as follows: Sl. No. Head Calculation Amount 1. Age of the deceased 45 years 2. Monthly income of the deceased Rs. 7,000/- 3. Annual Income of the deceased Rs 7,000/-x12 Rs. 84,000/- 4. Addition of Income towards future prospect 25% of Rs. 84,000/- Rs. 21,000/- As per Pranay Sethi’s Case. 5. Thus, the amount of compensation is calculated as follows: Sl. No. Head Calculation Amount 1. Age of the deceased 45 years 2. Monthly income of the deceased Rs. 7,000/- 3. Annual Income of the deceased Rs 7,000/-x12 Rs. 84,000/- 4. Addition of Income towards future prospect 25% of Rs. 84,000/- Rs. 21,000/- As per Pranay Sethi’s Case. 5. Total Annual income of the deceased Rs. 84,000/-+Rs. 21,000/= Rs. 105,000/- 6. Deduction towards personal living expenses Rs. 105,000/- (-) 1/5 of Rs. 105,000/- Rs. 84,000/- 7. Multiplier applicable Rs. 84,000/-x14 Rs. 1,176,000/- As per Sarla Verma Case 8. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- As per Pranay Sethi’s Case 9. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- As per Pranay Sethi’s Case 10. Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- Total Rs. 1,246,000/- 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that vide order dated 18.09.2018 of this Court, the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 8,00,000/- (Eight Lakhs Only) with liberty to be withdrawn by the claimants and the appellant has already deposited the said sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- in the court below. 13. In the result, the appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the rest of the compensation amount with interest as indicated above within 60 days from the date of this order and the claimants shall be at liberty to withdraw the same after proper verification in accordance with law. It is made clear that the compensation amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- which the Insurance Company has deposited in the court below, if it is not withdrawn by the claimants, they shall also be entitled to withdraw the same after proper verification in accordance with law. 14. In view of the above, the impugned judgment and award dated 07.02.2017, passed by learned District Judge XIV Cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in connection with Title (M.V.) Case No. 177 of 2014 is, hereby, modified to the extent as indicated herein above and the appeal stands partly allowed. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.